Daniel Ellsberg Calls for Boycott of Amazon.com

[RLENT]

"Open letter to Amazon.com Customer Service:

December 2, 2010

I’m disgusted by Amazon’s cowardice and servility in abruptly terminating today its hosting of the Wikileaks website, in the face of threats from Senator Joe Lieberman and other Congressional right-wingers. I want no further association with any company that encourages legislative and executive officials to aspire to China’s control of information and deterrence of whistle-blowing.

For the last several years, I’ve been spending over $100 a month on new and used books from Amazon. That’s over. I ask Amazon to terminate immediately my membership in Amazon Prime and my Amazon credit card and account, to delete my contact and credit information from their files and to send me no more notices.

I understand that many other regular customers feel as I do and are responding the same way. Good: the broader and more immediate the boycott, the better. I hope that these others encourage their contact lists to do likewise and to let Amazon know exactly why they’re shifting their business. I’ve asked friends today to suggest alternatives, and I’ll be exploring service from Powell’s Books, Half-Price Books, Biblio and others.

So far Amazon has spared itself the further embarrassment of trying to explain its action openly. This would be a good time for Amazon insiders who know and perhaps can document the political pressures that were brought to bear–and the details of the hasty kowtowing by their bosses–to leak that information. They can send it to Wikileaks (now on servers outside the US), to mainstream journalists or bloggers, or perhaps to sites like antiwar.com that have now appropriately ended their book-purchasing association with Amazon.[/B]

Yours (no longer),
Daniel Ellsberg"

Too funny ......

Link to original article (with comments - judging from which, it certainly doesn't look like folks are too happy with Amazon ):

Daniel Ellsberg Says Boycott Amazon

(Over the years I've spent well in excess of tens of thousands of dollars with Amazon .... and I just sent them the email canceling my account. Buh-bye .....)

 

[greg334]

Why?

Because they enforced the agreement he made when he signed up for the service.

I should ask Ellsberg to help me get a world wide boycott Rackspace for cutting off three sites I administer because someone posted an mp3 file on the three forums that they didn't own.

Should I and the site owner get ready to sue the RIAA for the pressure they put on ISPs and hosting services that damage sites by cutting them off, you think that the ACLU and Ellsberg will help out with the legal cost?

 

[Turtle]

I don't understand the outrage. WikiLeaks is storing and distributing documents they obtained illegally. WikiLeaks does not own the documents, nor the copyrights to them. There's also the chance that some of this material may cause actual harm to others. Amazon has some pretty clear-cut Terms of Service.

Should Amazon go, "Well, you're violating the TOS you agreed to, but in this case it's OK because you're, you know, WikiLeaks, and that makes it OK." ?

Amazon, a business enterprise, is supposed to be somehow obligated to host WikiLeaks' site even though WikiLeaks is operating in violation of the TOS? Really? If they do that, then Amazon is condoning the distribution of illegally obtained (pirated) copyrighted material. Maybe those boycotting Amazon should all chip in and start their own server farm just for WikiLeaks to use. Let 'em see what it's like to have their own tits in the copyright ringer.

 

[greg334]

If you don't get the outrage, here is a quick and simple explanation.

The elite class in this country has now got something to talk about. Their hatred for the very country that has allowed them to flourish has been preaching for years how bad this country is and now Wikileaks justified all it so they can say to us the very words "LOOK we told you so".

It is an attack on them when Wikileaks is being attacks, it is just like the Borg - a massive collective consciousness of people who have no original opinion other than to tell the common man that they are too stupid to understand anything.

 

[Turtle]

WikiLeaks has done some amazingly good things in the past, as per their stated goals. But releasing these cables isn't a part of their stated goals, they aren't doing it as a whistleblower outlet. They're doing it because the cables are embarrassing to the US, and they take great pleasure in making the US look bad. The only reason the overwhelming majority of these cables are newsworthy at all is because of the sheer number of them and because they make the US look bad. The very people who scream about the US government taking the attitude of the ends justify the means, will turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to WikiLeaks doing the same, exact thing. Those with a WikiWoodie think WikiLeaks can do no harm, and whatever they do is fine, be it "ends" or "means", because it's them doing it. If they were to take a step back and look at what WikiLeaks is going, they'll see someone with the mindset of a computer hacker who is dabbling in international espionage.

 

[LDB]

He's annoyed because someone who did the same thing he did is being taken to task for doing a wrong. He's unworthy of his citizenship and absolutely unworthy of listening to anything he has to say.

 

[greg334]

Well for the Kindle users, they may want to think about getting a nook with this BIG boycott that is going to happen.

 

[RLENT]

Why?

Because they enforced the agreement he made when he signed up for the service.

Already refuted - research it.

 

[RLENT]

He's annoyed because someone who did the same thing he did is being taken to task for doing a wrong. He's unworthy of his citizenship and absolutely unworthy of listening to anything he has to say.

Daniel Ellsberg exposed the fact that the citizens of this country were being systematically mislead and lied to .... about a war which ultimately cost over 58,000 US servicemen the ultimate price - their lives ..... and if you condemn him for that, you are totally unworthy of the freedom that they were willing to sacrifice their lives for ......

The guy risked his freedom, and perhaps, his life, to expose it ..... because it was the right thing to do ....................... what did you do ?

 

[greg334]

Already refuted - research it.

Refuted by Amazon?

Refuted by the legal system?

If it is such a big deal that he was unwrongly cut off, we must add that Amazon, the owner of the service has a direct legal obligation to limit or eliminate those who don't abide by the law, in this case assange didn't have permission to publish the material he had on his site that was hosted by Amazon. Amazon, a US based company has to operate within the law, the law and law case outcomes have been clear about the involvement of ISP/server owners when it comes down to copyrighted material.

Regardless what some professor or some 'journalist' says, the fact is clear that the burden was on Amazon to enforce the agreement that Assange made with Amazon regardless what involvement a senator or any US government official had.

 

[RLENT]

Refuted by Amazon? Refuted by the legal system?

Do the homework - the info is out there - and I'm not going to do the legwork for you.

If it is such a big deal that he was unwrongly cut off, we must add that Amazon, the owner of the service has a direct legal obligation to limit or eliminate those who don't abide by the law, in this case assange didn't have permission to publish the material he had on his site that was hosted by Amazon.

Well, while I realize you are a big fan of seeking permission from the state to live your life, the fact is, he didn't need it.

Amazon, a US based company has to operate within the law, the law and law case outcomes have been clear about the involvement of ISP/server owners when it comes down to copyrighted material.

Well, you might wanna read section 105 of the Copyright Act there Bunky .... Federal Government materials are not copyright protected under the Act.

If that were not the case, then by your (utterly flawed) logic any journalist or news organization who published such without permission would be in violation of copyright law .... and they aren't.

In fact, while you're boning up on copyright law, you may wish to revisit any study of The First Amendment that you have previously made, along with the various court cases that pertain to it .....

One particular issue that you should give particular attention to is a little thing called: prior restraint

There's alot of info out there on that - particularly as regards classified materials ..... read the legal rulings handed down by the courts ....

Regardless what some professor or some 'journalist' says, the fact is clear that the burden was on Amazon to enforce the agreement that Assange made with Amazon regardless what involvement a senator or any US government official had.

Like I said - you take a look (if you are really interested in knowing the actual facts of the situation, which I very seriously doubt) - the justification given by Amazon is false - it just serves as cover for them to do what they did.

 

[greg334]

Really, I am reading you are so overjoyed by all of this, you bombard all of us with it to tell the world.

Well I concede you are right about the copyright thing but not the permission issue. Amazon has a right to protect themselves, this is putting them in a position that can cause them more problems than a few who want to stop dealing with them.

Talking about the First Amendment, it is funny that you bring up journalist because the intent was not to have a single institution that qualifies people to be journalist but rather support a free press by any means without government intervention. You should know better than to drag up a comparison and I may be thinking that you are trying to deflect from the fact that Wikileaks publisher isn't afforded those rights or any rights under our laws because he is not here but hiding. The NYT thinks that it is above the law when they publish secrets, so does a other organizations but are they really?

The other thing is the First Amendment limits government, while at the same time limiting the actions of the few to harm the citizens. Like many issues with the First Amendment, the press has leverages themselves into a fictional position through court cases that they are above the law, not equal to any citizen and afforded special rights which allow them to get away with things that any citizen can not get away with. This is actually opposite from what the Amendment intended, which was not to have institutionalized journalism but have a citizen press, something that our institutionalizes press is attacking.

So back to the copyright thing, I understand the feds not being able to copyright some stuff but there is a lot of things that are copyrighted and owned by the feds. A lot of NASA's stuff is, so is a lot of other research material that can't be used without permission. Or am I wrong?

 

[Turtle]

In the case of the leaked documents, it's not about copyright, but it's about whether you own or control the rights to the information. In this case, Wikileaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to the classified documents, which is a direct violation of Amazon's TOS. It's also a violation of many Web sites, several of which have kicked Wikileaks off their servers for the same reasons.

As for Amazon's statement as to why they kicked Wikileaks off their servers, I've seen where people claim that Amazon is lying, but I haven't seen any proof that they kicked Wikileaks off for anything other than what was in their statement. Still doing legwork, tho...